It is good to see this book in print again. A work that set out to be both a
history and a prophetic call for transformation in southern religion has in the
last thirty years itself become part of history and transformed both churches
and scholarship. Having a copy is like holding a facsimile of some time-tested
text. This is not because Hill’s original 1966 work is no longer relevant, but
rather because Hill’s text has had such a profound influence and contained
such original insights. As I have argued elsewhere, Hill’s 1966 text is
profoundly relevant today, perhaps even more so than Hill himself would
acknowledge. In addition to the original text in full, this new edition has two
essays which blend historiographical and biographical reflections with a new,
although more nuanced, prophetic call for the churches of the contemporary
South. Therefore, this new book is not simply a republication or a new edition,
instead it is a “revisitation.”

Samuel Hill humbly identifies three justifications for the republication of
his 1966 Southern Churches in Crisis. The first is the “continuing life
of the original book . . . Somehow this particular book continues to be read,
quoted, and cited--despite having been out of print for nearly a quarter century”
(xi). The second justification concerns the “dramatic changes that have
occurred in southern religious life since 1966 . . . Whatever the crisis may
have been during the 1960s, it is hardly that now” (xi). The third reason is
that the study of southern religion, long neglected, has in the wake of Hill’s
1966 book become its own scholarly enterprise.

"Hill
sees his neglect of African Americans as both a massive academic and
personal failure which resulted from 'my own limited vision and undersized
heart.'"

Each of these justifications has a corresponding feature in the “revisitation.”
In relation to the continuing life of original book, Hill has written an
introductory essay entitled “Southern Churches in Crisis Revisited.” As a
result of the burgeoning of southern religious studies, a list of “key”
works in the field since 1990 is included. Finally, in response to the changes
within southern religion since 1966, Hill has written another essay entitled “Thirty
Years Later: An Interpretive Essay.”

In the first introductory essay, Hill gives a largely biographical account of
the writing of Southern Churches in Crisis. He notes that “Southern
Churches in Crisis was a theological treatise from beginning to end, perhaps
more so than almost all other studies in that era.” Hill concedes that “I
did not check my personal investment in the subject at the door of my study.
Those were critical times, and I was a man of the church who cared considerably
about how things were to turn out.” Reflecting on influences and impulses,
Hill writes that “besides being a tract for the times, the book was a
confessional manifesto resulting from personal pilgrimage” (xiii).

Hill then points out a number of weaknesses in his original study. He
misdiagnosed the motivations of Presbyterians in the 1960s and generally lumped
believers together in a haphazard fashion, ignoring both denominational and
personal distinctions and variations. Hill sees his neglect of African Americans
as both a massive academic and personal failure which resulted from “my own
limited vision and undersized heart” (xvii). In addition, Hill maintains that
the scholarly research into African American religious history had not yet been
done, and that much of it still needs doing. After discussing some major
landmark texts in the study of African-American religion and the interaction
between African and European religious practice in America, Hill writes that in
retrospect “ I wish that I had at least acknowledged how interactive the two
racial religious formations had been, how mutually implicating they were. Myopia
took its toll, however, and that is a real weakness within Southern Churches
in Crisis” (xix-x). Hill recognizes that the same is also true for his
lack of discussion of women in the original text.

Hill then recognizes a number of other limitations and addresses a
forthcoming publication by Beth Barton Schweiger, who maintains that southern
religious studies is itself in captivity, mesmerized by many of Hill’s
original ideas concerning southern uniqueness and the defining elements of
southern evangelical Protestantism.

Hill ends this first introductory essay by suggesting two areas for further
research. “One is the relative absence of ‘disciplined spirituality’ in
the church life of the region. The other is the paucity of instances of radical
Christianity and radical communities of faith” in the South (xxiii).

A “representative list” of studies since 1990 follows. This short
bibliography is disappointing. While a comprehensive list of works since 1990
would not be expected, the list presented here is too small to be very useful
for most scholars. The number of notable omissions is large. This list is a
reminder of how few comprehensive bibliographies exist for the study of religion
in the South. It would be a major contribution to the field if an electronic
medium, such as the American Religious Experience or the Journal of
Southern Religion were to compile an ongoing and comprehensive bibliography
which would include not only published books and articles, but also
dissertations and conference proceedings (both entirely absent from Hill’s
bibliography). Until then, Hill’s bibliography provides a meager list of what
is on offer for the hungry intellect interested in religion in the South.

While the first new essay will be interesting for students approaching Hill’s
text for the first time, the second essay, titled “Thirty Years Later: An
Interpretive Essay,” will have the most appeal for scholars. Hill begins by
distinguishing the crisis of the 1960s from the crisis (Hill himself questions
the use of the word) of the 1990s. The former he sees as the result of a broad
and very real cultural upheaval that spilled into the southern churches. The
later is in his opinion an internal affair, “initiated by the churches and
having to do with parochial matters, quite pointedly their doctrinal orthodoxy”
(xxx).

Hill identifies a new ethical agenda as at the forefront of concern. The two
most important features of this new ethical agenda are objection to both
homosexuality and abortion. Most fascinating is the section of Hill’s essay
entitled “Doctrinal Purity as Today’s Central Theme.” Here Hill maintains
that an emphasis on rational purity has replaced the heartfelt conversion
experience as the central theme of southern religion. Hill sees this to be both
a real and a new development. “If earlier the test of legitimacy had to do
with the claim of having God’s presence and forgiveness known with certainty
to be in one’s life, the evaluation now pertains to a claim of orthodoxy” (xl).
While much of this discussion is concerned with the Southern Baptist Convention
and is somewhat questionable in its comprehensiveness, it certainly makes for an
interesting argument and is a further demonstration of Hill’s fearlessness in
revising his initial observations.

While the essays provide for interesting reading, a number of the old
limitations continue to creep in. For example, in his discussion of “The New
Political Ethic,” Hill notes that the political shift in the South is an
important topic in recent scholarship. Throughout his discussion of the shifting
allegiance among southern white voters from Democrats to Republicans, one is
painfully aware that his analysis is solely concerned with the “white
population” (xlix). After Hill’s heartfelt apology for his previous myopia,
it is interesting to see its persistence. While it is true that historically
most white people in the South voted Democrat and only recently have begun to
vote Republican, it is also significant that the southern African-American
population has made a switch in the opposite direction. In this section and
throughout Hill’s discussion of the new emphasis on rational purity, one
cannot help but think that Hill is referring somewhat exclusively to white male
religious leaders in the South.

Moreover, Hill has not lost his ability to preach through his scholarship. He
chides the new emphasis on rational purity since it preempts “any notion of
unconditional love.” Furthermore, “absolute adherence to the truth . . .
supersedes acknowledging their worth as the persons they are in and of
themselves” (li). Hill further cautions that “an uncritical outlook always
tempts toward idolatry” (lvii). These and other prophetic admonitions are not
necessarily unwelcome, but should be treated with caution.

Hill also addresses some of the important religious continuities and
discontinuities between the 1960s and the 1990s. The only important continuity
he sees in southern religion is a consistent supernatural worldview. He writes
that “a remarkable continuity binds the revivalistic Evangelicalism of the
earlier period with the doctrinal rationalism of recent developments: the
conviction that everything about the churches’ message and mission is
supernatural” (lv). It is likely, however, that there are further important
continuities, many extending from Hill’s original 1966 analysis.

The major discontinuity is the new emphasis on orthodoxy that has allegedly
replaced experimental religion in the South. Hill sees this as having three
causes. The first is the “loss of unrivaled . . . dominance in regional life”
(lviii). The second is the “crusade to preserve or recover the old alliance
between culture and religion” (lix). Finally, Hill judges “the crusade to
recover and preserve orthodoxy to be impelled more by the churches’ diminished
hold on the culture than by the rise of liberal beliefs” (lix). Hill concludes
this section in saying “I surmise that the new Fundamentalism in the South
amounts, in part, to a cry of the heart for the loss of the bond that for so
long linked evangelical Christianity to the culture” (lx).

Hill ends his look at the last thirty years and the nature of the present
with a look towards the future. He sees the possibility, although not
necessarily the probability, of a rapprochement between liberal and evangelical
Protestants. Finally, Hill concludes by saying, “Some of us have been
remarking for many years that the study of religion in the American South is
endlessly fascinating. Nothing has happened to alter that assessment or to
diminish the significance of the interaction of religion and culture in that
storied region. Human and cultural well-being are at stake, therefore the stakes
are very high” (lxii).

As some one who has only come recently to the study of religion in the South,
I am delighted to see this work back in print. After having to obtain my copies
of the original work through rare book sellers, I am glad to know that today’s
students can easily get their hands on this classic work, which continues to be
relevant today. Libraries should certainly obtain this “revisitation” and
students unfamiliar with Hill should go directly to this new edition. This book
is not only a history and discussion of religion in the South, but also a
primary text for historical study. Combined with the new introductory essays it
is a gem for which both Hill and the editors of the Religion and American
Culture series at the University of Alabama Press are to be congratulated. This
book will certainly make for challenging reading in the new millennium.